Implementing UNDRIP: some reflections on Bill C-262

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Implementing UNDRIP: some reflections on Bill C-262

Bill Commented On: Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This post comments on Bill C-262 adopted by the House of Commons on May 30, 2018. The Bill is currently in the Senate awaiting debate in a very packed fall sitting. The post is based on a presentation that I made to the Conference on Indigenous Solutions to Environmental Problems held at the Banff Centre, Banff Alberta, November 9 – 12th 2018 on the Treaty 7 territory of the Stoney Nakoda First Nation.

Part I offers some preliminary comments on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration or UNDRIP). Part II describes Canada’s bumpy road to the endorsement of the Declaration. Part III examines the subject of latest step in that endorsement, namely the government’s support of MP Romeo Saganash’s private member’s bill, Bill C-262.

My main conclusion is that the Bill strikes a judicious balance between affording the Declaration some immediate “application” in the laws of Canada, and the creation of a process that will, over time, give greater effect to the Declaration within the Canadian legal system and in doing so slowly decolonize Canadian law and the Canadian legal mind. My perception of the balanced nature of the Bill means that I do not share the views expressed by some (see, for example, Dwight Newman and Ken Coates here) to the effect that the Bill is overly simplistic and will shift a lot more power to the courts.

Continue reading →

Food for thought: Judgment of the European Court of Justice on Capacity Market Issues

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Food for thought: Judgment of the European Court of Justice on Capacity Market Issues

Case Commented On: Tempus Energy Ltd v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 November 2018, Case T-793/14.

Those engaged in the challenging job of designing a capacity market for Alberta’s electricity sector might be interested in this recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in which the Court concluded that the European Commission (EC) had been too hasty in approving the design of the UK’s proposed capacity market. The case arises in the particular context of the primary law of the European Union (EU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and specifically that treaty’s provisions on “State aid” – better known to the rest of the world as unlawful state subsidies. The UK’s proposed capacity market had to be notified to the EC for its approval because a capacity market, despite the “market” label, represents a departure from a “purer” version of an electricity market (an energy only market). A capacity market involves a degree of central planning (estimating the required capacity) and then “out of market” payments to those who post winning bids to provide that capacity. See my earlier post on Alberta’s capacity market legislation here. Continue reading →

Payout under Alberta’s Oil Sands Royalty Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Payout under Alberta’s Oil Sands Royalty Regulation

Case Commented On: Fort Hills Energy Corporation v Alberta (Minister of Energy), 2018 ABQB 905

A year ago, ABlawg posted a case comment on a dispute related to the determination of payout with respect to the Hibernia project on the East Coast. That case, Newfoundland and Labrador v ExxonMobil Canada Properties, 2017 NLDT(G) 147, 2017 CanLII 56724 (NL SCTD), involved an arbitration followed by an unsuccessful application by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to have the court overturn the arbitral award. Fort Hills, perhaps more conventionally, involves the definition of payout under the terms of Alberta’s Oil Sands Royalty Regulation, 2009, Alta Reg 223/2008, (OSRR). In this case the matter arises as an application for judicial review with respect to the Minister’s decision on one element of the payout account for the Fort Hills Oil Sand Project (FHOS Project), namely a category of expenses referred to as ‘prior net cumulative balance’ (PNCB). The differences between the parties were massive. Suncor had originally claimed a PNCB of $1,898,205,145; the minister allowed a PNCB of a little more than $33 million, and a further review and audit reduced this to $NIL. Definitely worth fighting about!

Continue reading →

Resisting Assimilation: the Politique en matière de francophonie in Alberta, Bessette v British Columbia, and the Impact of Language Rights on Access to Justice

By: Alexandra Heine

PDF Version: Resisting Assimilation: the Politique en matière de francophonie in Alberta, Bessette v British Columbia, and the Impact of Language Rights on Access to Justice

Cases Commented On: R v Bessette, 2015 BCPC 230; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2016 BCSC 2416; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2017 BCCA 264; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2018 BCCA 59; Joseph Roy Éric Bessette v Attorney General of British Columbia, Supreme Court of Canada, Docket: 37790

In June 2017, the Government of Alberta unveiled the Politique en matière de francophonie (Politique en matière de francophonie, Alberta Government) in an attempt to recognize the importance of protecting French minority communities. The goal of this policy is to substantiate the re-emergence of Francophone communities in Alberta by improving the accessibility and quality of services in French. Amongst other things, the government stated that they would communicate more often in French and add the Franco-Albertan flag to the list of provincial emblems. The government has also indicated that they will consider making the policy into a law.

Continue reading →

Domestic Violence and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes

By: Wanda Wiegers, Jennifer Koshan and Janet Mosher

PDF Version: Domestic Violence and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes

Legislation Commented On: Bill 98, The Miscellaneous Statutes (Family Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act; Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

Access to justice in the family law sphere has received a lot of attention in recent years. One recurring theme is the large number of self-represented litigants and the need to explore mandatory out-of-court dispute resolution. Alberta does not currently mandate any type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for family law or child welfare matters (see here), but some other jurisdictions do. One issue that arises in this context is whether ADR is appropriate in cases involving domestic violence. In Saskatchewan, Bill 98, The Miscellaneous Statutes (Family Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act, will amend the Queen’s Bench Act, 1998, SS 1998, c Q-1.01, to require parties to participate in family dispute resolution (s 44.01(3)), but the parties may be exempted from that requirement if there is a history of interpersonal violence between them (s 44.01(6)(c)). We submitted a brief to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice in August 2017, prior to the enactment of Bill 98, which discussed the importance of considering domestic violence in this context (see here). The issue is once again alive as Parliament debates Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. In its current iteration, Bill C-78 would amend the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), to create duties (1) on parties to “try to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this Act through a family dispute resolution process” (proposed s 7.3) and, (2) on legal advisers to encourage their clients to use family dispute resolution processes (proposed s 7.7(2)(a); Bill C-78 defines “legal adviser” as “a person who is qualified, in accordance with the law of a province, to represent or provide legal advice to another person” in any proceeding under the Divorce Act). Although the amendments recognize that the duties may not apply where “the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so,” they do not explicitly exempt cases involving domestic violence at present.

Continue reading →